Do I have to choose one or the other?

I don't know, I suspect people probably say about what they want to say anyway/either way.

maybe he made a video

When whacko fundie whackoff Ken Starr became the most important Republican in American by leading the entire republican establishment and the fundie lunatic half of the country in an attempt to hound a president out of office by hysterically waving a cum stain for 2 years I'd say Larry Flynt was EXACTLY the guy to illustrate the sexual insanity of the right. Oh yeah, right, it was about the lying. Good think Bush NEVER lied or he would be OUT.

See this is the problem; the only way to prevent men from being sexually interested in powerful women is to require that any women with power be extremely ugly, extremely old, or extremely obese (actually these things would not COMPLETELY eliminate the interest but they would get rid of most of it). The only other option is a cultural and legal police state fighting an endless war against nature.

and the guy who was paralyzed for life as a result of an assassination attempt on their behalf by someone who nobody made any effort to find or prosecute is the bad guy.

I wonder if the same thing will happen between right and left wing prudes. The problem with this is gay rights; left wing prudes are for them, right wing prudes against so it's hard for them to cooperate on other sexual matters. Maybe the acceptance of gay marriage will eliminate this problem.

Actually I was wrong when I said that it would require a police state for men to lose interest in porn. Men may be induced to publicly profess a sexuality that is the same as that of women if that is what they have to do to get laid, I guess the question is will they have another arena where they can be themselves.

Don't start sounding like Nader Glenn.

or are they just doing what they have to (try to)do for McCain?

if MAY be that it would take a SLIGHTLY different form, but that would be, at most, the difference.

if Palin's "hotness" is a party creation, the agent of that creation is, mostly, Palin herself.

Palin is different, she give off a smart ass cheerleader attitude but it doesn't make her entirely unlikable. Whatever is going on I don't think it can be entirely faked, at least not by everyone. If it could be the Republicans would use it a lot more.

Palin on the other hand, if you could get her to focus on reality long enough to understand that all her religious and political ideas are completely wrong, seems like she might not be so bad.

that is definitely a turn off.

but if she had had his background and/or if she worked at it for a while she might be as passable as he is. It doesn't sound like much, but, sadly, it apparently was enough. Hopefully things have changed.

(she is actually one of the few women I've ever reacted to that way)

It happens all the time!!! There have been literally hundreds of pornos in the past 10 years where "President" porn startlet gets a (female equivalent)blow job in the oval office. I don't watch gay male porn but I'd bet a substantial amount of money that the same thing is true there (obviously not the female equivalent in that case). This isn't even an issue and never has been, the only reason the subject is even considered worthy of public discussion is that a woman is being sexually "insulted".

interesting point, how is this any different in principle from asserting that society has an obligation in principle to compensate women somehow for the competitive disadvantages that pregnancy and childbirth impose.

well ME being in an UNDERSEXUALIZED environment where most of, well some of, the women couldn't get it up for me if I was the only man on earth puts me under TREMENDOUS STRESS and causes my intellectual and social performance to be FAR INFERIOR to what it would be in the absence of that stress and this has significant effects on my career performance. I think people should be required to alter their behavior to suit MY emotional preferences or I should be compensated in some way if they can't or won't do so.

It was enshrined in the Constitution but no serious attempt to constrain the right of the dominant religion to use the govt to impose it's religious rules on everyone was made until the 60s. When some steps were taken towards making freedom of religion a practical reality rather than a theoretical reality where the dominant religion was allowed to claim credit for tolerance without actually having to grant any the christianist right went crazy and they have been crazy ever since.

he may be right about how the situation evolved but even if all reproduction becomes artificial it won't change the instinctive sexual/emotional reactions of people because those things have already become hard wired in response to the situation.

It actually makes "sense" if you look at it in "context": Jesus loving Republicans are trying to prevent Satan loving Democrats from murdering babies. What are laws, constitutions, votes, vote counting, intellectual consistency or even sanity when measured against that.

of their own lunatic supporters suggests that something is really changing.

If there is no difference then why does it matter whether women have power or not. This may be no reason to DENY them power, but it's also no reason to go out of your way to provide it to them (an PLEASE lay off the crap about women's lack of "modesty", if women weren't more "modest" than men men wouldn't spend all the time money and trouble they do trying to get them interested)